Just Bob

Member: Seasoned Veteran
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Personal Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,137 profile views
  1. In looking at pictures of different coins dated 1740 and 1749, I thought I had found a die marker that showed a clear difference between the two dates, but then I discovered that, apparently, more than one obverse die was used in 1740, so that idea went out the window. Still, I think all the others are right. Looks like a "9" to me.
  2. Your coin appears to be a proof coin that entered circulation. Since all proofs are assumed to have full steps, due to the special minting process they undergo, NGC will not give them the "Full step" designation. Also, since the coin is circulated, it will not grade high enough to make it worth the expense of having it graded. Just enjoy it as a novelty.
  3. I have never gone back and read the original threads on this subject, if they still exist at all, but I wondered about what the guarantee actually did state when this incident took place. If, in fact the guarantee did specifically cover provenance at the time the coin was sold and subsequently returned, it was PCGS' duty, in my opinion, to make you whole, at least to FMV.
  4. I would love to hear a grader's opinion on that rim ding on the reverse at 5:00. That may be enough to get a details grade.
  5. W.P. Brown was reported at one time to have had 20 plantations, with more land under cultivation than any other individual in the US. This token was used in the farm store located in Drew, MS, from 1919-1940. It is listed as an R8 (4-5 known). I have a 5 cent token (R7), also. There were also tokens issued in denominations of 25 cents and one dollar.
  6. Whatever it is, it is probably worth more in the encasement than out. Don't try to remove it. You will likely cause more damage, and destroy what value it has.
  7. I can see the outline of the shield and part of the wreath in the headdress, and what appears to be the arrows and bow in and around the date. The problem that I have with the die clash theory is that the devices are the deepest part of the die, and in order for the dies to come together with enough force to show designs from the "bottom" of two deep parts, there should be very deep clash marks all over the fields, and not just parts of it. The marks could not have been polished off, otherwise there would not be marks left on some of the field and not other parts. Plus, it would have required so much polishing that much of the lowest parts of the devices would have been polished away. No, it looks like the reverse of another cent was hammered or pressed into your obverse, transferring the high points of its design onto the high points of your coin. It is what Coinbuf called a "vise job." Now, about the rim and denticles - I don't know. My guess would be pressed into an encasement, as you first thought.
  8. A token minted in 1859 would have been during the time of the U.S. Merchant tokens - (1845-1860) - after Hard Times and pre- Civil War. There is nothing listed in Rulau that matches yours. In fact I could only find one Indian Head token for the whole period, issued by a company in New York, and it is not a match. It also does not match any Civil War tokens that I could find, although the illustrations in Rulau are fuzzy for some of the examples. I can't imagine why a Civil War token would have a date of 1859, though. Without seeing the reverse, it will be impossible to say for sure, but my opinion is that it is neither a coin nor a token, but a "replica" piece made for the purpose of mounting in jewelry. Oddly, there was one like it on Ebay over the weekend, but it is gone now. It was listed for $100, but I can assure you that this is a very "optimistic" price. I doubt it is worth more than $15 - $20 at most.
  9. Would you mind showing closer pictures of the upper three headdress feathers, and the obverse rim from about 2:00 to 5:00?
  10. Rather than rotate the stars and date counterclockwise, wouldn't it have been easier to just rotate the bust clockwise to line up with the date, and move the stars in a bit?
  11. It appears to be a "close AM," so that puts it dating after 1992.
  12. If you are looking for the transitional variety that is worth more than face value, that would be a 1982 D small date cent made of 95 percent copper and 5 percent zinc. The "D" shows that the cent was minted in Denver. Yours was minted in Philadelphia.